Question for 'evolutionists'

[NeSCio]

I don’t know whether evolutionist is a real word, if not I’m sorry for that, but I know there are quite a few good posters in this forum who have sound knowledge on evolution etc.

So my question is: “what is the use/role/function of antibiotics from an evolutionary point of view?”

As we know antibiotics are the most used drugs in the world and are often produced by fungi or bacteria and kill other bacteria. However, what is their role in nature? It’s certainly not to kill bacteria in their niche and protect themselves, because for that the concentration of their antibiotic is too low to have any effect. Apart from this possible, but very improbable, explanation, nothing else comes to mind.

any insights?

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

i guess they got same evolutionary role as predators, or viruses, survival of the fittest!
but i don't think "role" is a nice word, cause they live teir life and strive to survive and become as numerous as possible, just like any other creature....and the effect on evolution is pure hasard, bacteria who can kill other bacteria are not made for evolution, but rather their ablities has built evolution, it's the other logical way...if i make sense ....

i mean, bacteria who can kill other bacteria have their own lives, and fight for it, if destroying other bacteria to remain dominant in an environement, like the nice bacteria of yogurt in your milk, is beneficial for humans, it's jus a byproduct of evolution, initally it was beneficial to yogurt bacteria, and then humans learnt to use it for their own survival...but far later than apparition of yogurt bacteria...of course now it's a kind of synergy: humans help yogurt bacteria to grown big colonies, and in turn they fight any other desease bearing bacteria from entering our yogurt! and help humans to survive by protecting from dangerous food bacteria!

to come back to the intial question, i don't think , as an evolutionist, that this kind of question is bothering us, because unlike creationist, we do NOT believe things are made FOR a point but rather, that things come to exstence and the consequences of their existence come after, and time builds a sum of little consequences without plans, that in the end make the big picture we see today...pure fortune

do i make any sense?

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

^well, the thing is that in nature bacteria don't kill other bacteria by use of antibiotics (=their concentration is simply too low).

And if we move on to humans and say that bacteria will survive longer because humans will grow them, then it won't hold because if we start entering humans there are 1000 things in humans that are against evolution; therefore, this argument seems rather far fetched.

ps the yoghurt bacteria exert their work by keeping the pH of the yoghurt within certain bounds, not by producing antibiotics.

So the question remains: what is the use of antibiotics in nature?

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

@NeSCio

^well, the thing is that in nature bacteria don't kill other bacteria by use of antibiotics (=their concentration is simply too low).

And if we move on to humans and say that bacteria will survive longer because humans will grow them, then it won't hold because if we start entering humans there are 1000 things in humans that are against evolution; therefore, this argument seems rather far fetched.

ps the yoghurt bacteria exert their work by keeping the pH of the yoghurt within certain bounds, not by producing antibiotics.

So the question remains: what is the use of antibiotics in nature?

oooooops sorry!

antibiotics as i use them are produced by plants to ward off pests...
just like our immune system can kill bacteria, it's a defense system to live longer...
ps, uhmans like to destroy the planet for their own temporary pleasure...lol they are certainly the most evolved anti life product! but humans are part of evolution process...as i said they is NO goal before things come to existence, humans are an accident of evolution, like anything that shaped it...
no doubt that legs were accident of evolution fishes did not need first...but later on they came to get use of it! just like we came to use antibiotics that did not have any use in low concentration....

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

^ahaan, ok agreed antibiotics by plants: that makes sense

what about antibiotics by fungi or bacteria against other bacteria that don't even come close to them in nature?

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

@NeSCio

^ahaan, ok agreed antibiotics by plants: that makes sense

what about antibiotics by fungi or bacteria against other bacteria that don't even come close to them in nature?

what about the ability of some animals to live in cities, wihle cities never existed before human came to existence?
in evolution there is a key concept:
the organ come to existence BEFORE the functiun!

so for example fishes grew legs, before even walking on earth!
these bacteria produce something that is helpful to their organism...and it happens that in high concentration of tubes in labs of some researcher it is an antibiotic...well, in nature things exist before their use, and it's the use that makes evolution....because obviously thos bacteria who produce antibiotics are selected by humans...and have higher chance to live now! that's evolution!

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

sorry for diverting a little bit, but this struck me very much!

the organ come to existence BEFORE the functiun!<<<<

I've never heard this. This doesn't make sense. Because this means evolution starts making an organ, and without any function it is lingering on the body for generations on end, and when the organ becomes functional, evolution thinks of a function for it????? :o

nonono, I can't believe this. If this is true then evolution is totally illogical and i will discard this as an utter non-sense theory.

If anything it should be "the organ comes into existence because there is a need/function for it"

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

^following that arguments, fish grew lungs and after that they thought 'hey, we can now live outside the water'?

I'd rather have it that an organ/cellculture developed that by chance could manage to stay out of water for a few seconds. These animals were at an advantage because they could escape predators by being outside the water in pressure sitations. Therefore, that organ started growing and growing (=because those with random mutations that made the cell culture larger remained alive) and became fully functional--> a lung

[Khumar]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

in actuality...bacteria have this little thing called a plasmid, which is besides their circular DNA. that little thing is the antiobiotic thingy u are talking about. that thing can give them immunity against all the environmental agents that can harm them.

evolutinary speaking, say you have a strain of bacteria with the plasmid, and anotehr that doesn't. the one with the plasmid will have a better chance to survive a certain agent, while the one without the plasmid won't. now say that the 2 strains decide to reproduce via conjugation. now, the one with the plasmids, via conjugation, can survive as well. the ones who couldn't get the plasmid, die. get it?

there is stuff a bout exonucleases and viruses as well...but you didn't ask about it.

[Khumar]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

evolution is nothing but mutations. switch an A with a C, or delete a T, you can get weird stuff happening.

for example. sickle cell anemia is nothing but a genetic mutation. but if you happen to have the recessive gene for it, and you happen to be in Africa, that greatly increases your chances of survival if you happen to get malaria. as soon as the virus infects you, the red blood cells take the form of the sickle, and the virus' have no chance or reproducing and multiplying. But, if you have 2 recessive genes of the sickle cell, you die at an early age. this little phenomenon is nothing but evolution in progress. right now, it's got an advantage, so it's there.

[kingomar]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

another question that bothers me a lot.

which group of the the "andomorphs" started to evolve first? was it all at the same time?

would it be logical to say that some groups of humans evolved faster than the other, and hence are superior? if not, WHAT force was at work to make sure all evolve at the same rate and the evolution begins in the whole group at the same time? pardon my ignorance on this matter, but please enlighten me, and please be patient with my questions.

i'm studying electronics engineering and trust me, if you take an IC chip and tell somebody, "it all came together by itself", the designers will be chasing you with their well designed baseball bats.

SEE, this is when evolution doesn't make sense to me.

if i open up a cpu, and i take the processor in it, and then it tell you, "see this pentium 4, it wasnt always a pent 4. it started with a small drop of hydro carbons, which became plastic later on, which had no circuit traces on it, had no ic's mounted on it, and with time it turned into a very fast processor. the ic's mounted on it came into existance by accident. the monitor, the key board and all the accessories were connected to the cpu by long chain of small accidents. today we call the processor a pentium 4. its better and superior to pentium 2 and 3 because it has evolved to be a much superior object. therefore pentium 4 is superior to pentium 2 or 3."

then an electronics engineer comes along and tells me,"oi you moron, the company i work for called intel designed this, and it took a lot of brains to do so."

then an evolutionist stands up and says, "yep, this computer, when compared to a human brain is much simple, took a lot of engineers and YEARS of hard work to design, but the brains that those engineers used were very small bacteria in the beginning. there were no traces of nerves. and no skeleton. no eyes and no ears and no mouth. then after MILLION of years those simple unicell organisms in a pond turned into humans today."

i tell you that the computer you're using came into existance by accident and you laugh at me and call me illogical and insane. yet at the same time, you take a few fossils, and 693000 tonns of speculation, and you tell me humanity is JUST an accident.

its not the animals getting used to live in the cities, its the humans pushing into their habitat.

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for ‘evolutionists’

@Khumar

in actuality…bacteria have this little thing called a plasmid, which is besides their circular DNA. that little thing is the antiobiotic thingy u are talking about. that thing can give them immunity against all the environmental agents that can harm them.

evolutinary speaking, say you have a strain of bacteria with the plasmid, and anotehr that doesn’t. the one with the plasmid will have a better chance to survive a certain agent, while the one without the plasmid won’t. now say that the 2 strains decide to reproduce via conjugation. now, the one with the plasmids, via conjugation, can survive as well. the ones who couldn’t get the plasmid, die. get it?

there is stuff a bout exonucleases and viruses as well…but you didn’t ask about it.

I’m not sure whether this is fully true…as far as I still remember plasmids can ensure resistance against antibiotics. In nature plasmids don’t code for antibiotics…rather for ways to be resistent against them. So I’m not sure if your argument holds. And again, even if plasmids produced antibiotics, the concentration is too low to be of any use in nature

[NeSCio]

Re: Question for ‘evolutionists’

@Khumar

evolution is nothing but mutations. switch an A with a C, or delete a T, you can get weird stuff happening.

for example. sickle cell anemia is nothing but a genetic mutation. but if you happen to have the recessive gene for it, and you happen to be in Africa, that greatly increases your chances of survival if you happen to get malaria. as soon as the virus infects you, the red blood cells take the form of the sickle, and the virus’ have no chance or reproducing and multiplying. But, if you have 2 recessive genes of the sickle cell, you die at an early age. this little phenomenon is nothing but evolution in progress. right now, it’s got an advantage, so it’s there.

I can imagine in Africa, but why then is sickle cell anemia (perhaps a better example is thallasemia, which works the same way) also prevalent in the medittarenean, if malaria is extinct in those areas?

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

@NeSCio

sorry for diverting a little bit, but this struck me very much!

the organ come to existence BEFORE the functiun!<<<<

I've never heard this. This doesn't make sense. Because this means evolution starts making an organ, and without any function it is lingering on the body for generations on end, and when the organ becomes functional, evolution thinks of a function for it????? :o

nonono, I can't believe this. If this is true then evolution is totally illogical and i will discard this as an utter non-sense theory.

If anything it should be "the organ comes into existence because there is a need/function for it"

:Dnature is nature not logic!
logic is manmade thinking...nature is NOT manmade!
that's what creationist can't stand...humans mean NOTHING and are stupid monkey descent.....all arogant people can't stand it and that's what evolution theory is claiming

back to your comment: you've never heard this cause you probably never studied paleonthology at uni...well it's something geology/biology students learn.

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

@NeSCio

^following that arguments, fish grew lungs and after that they thought 'hey, we can now live outside the water'?

I'd rather have it that an organ/cellculture developed that by chance could manage to stay out of water for a few seconds. These animals were at an advantage because they could escape predators by being outside the water in pressure sitations. Therefore, that organ started growing and growing (=because those with random mutations that made the cell culture larger remained alive) and became fully functional--> a lung

you just said it, first some lung started to grow then as it was advantage it became so prominent for terrestrial creatures...but first it appeared "out of context", a use was found by intelligent( humans are not the only intelligent people down there....) animals and then the organ grew and came its present day functiun

@NeSCio

I can imagine in Africa, but why then is sickle cell anemia (perhaps a better example is thallasemia, which works the same way) also prevalent in the medittarenean, if malaria is extinct in those areas?

cause malaria is NOT extinct is those areas...my grnadmother grew in algeria and got malaria there, she kept it all her life.

[parissenoor]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

@kingomar

another question that bothers me a lot.

which group of the the "andomorphs" started to evolve first? was it all at the same time?

would it be logical to say that some groups of humans evolved faster than the other, and hence are superior? if not, WHAT force was at work to make sure all evolve at the same rate and the evolution begins in the whole group at the same time? pardon my ignorance on this matter, but please enlighten me, and please be patient with my questions.

.

well evolutionist say it. that's why homo neanderthalensis disappeared but not homo sapiens, our species

no force, evolution is history and neither physics nor logic, history is a sum of accidents, and NO real logic or force is at work.

so modern humans are apparently the children of a single lady who existed round 400 000 years old, according to genetics studies...but that time frame is far from certain...all that is rather known is that modern humans did not evolve at same rate, and we are not the descent of most of skeletons that have been found

[vineshvk]

Re: Question for 'evolutionists'

I am not a biologist hence i dont want to add too much into the discussion..
But i found a referance for an article that i think may be usefull.
I will try to read on it when i have time..
here it..
* The role of somatic hypermutation in the generation of antibody diversity*(1989). Science 244, 4909 : 1152-1157.f